getAclConfigTypeSetting

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description need not repeat it. The description adds modest value by explaining what the setting means semantically (how ACL rules are evaluated for traffic) and that the answer is an L2/L3 mode, but says nothing about response shape, multi-site behavior, or what happens when the gateway lacks ACL support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource and followed by a single clarifying clause about semantics. The second sentence earns its place by explaining what the setting governs, though it borders on restating the first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, and the mention of L2/L3 mode partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. However, with no output schema the agent still cannot tell the exact return shape (bare enum versus an object containing site and mode), and edge cases such as non-gateway sites or omitted siteId outcomes are unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single optional siteId that already documents its pattern, the OMADA_SITE_ID default fallback, and the listSites discovery path. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does all the work here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (get the ACL configuration type setting) and scopes it to the site gateway, further clarifying the value domain as L2 or L3 mode. This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings that return ACL rule lists (listOsgAcls, getOsgCustomAclList) or general firewall config (getFirewallSetting), though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs to know whether ACLs are evaluated in L2 or L3 mode. There is no stated when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g., gateway must support ACLs), and no explicit pointer to the sibling ACL tools that answer different questions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.